Is not the presence of a forest engulfed in ice not evidence that it was considerably more than 0.1K warmer, circa 1,000 years ago? Are not the farms and burials in Greenland, circa 1,000 years ago, while it is now too cold for either, evidence? No doubt there are many other examples to be found, but, good Lord, EM – just what do you want as evidence? You are being given evidence, but, just because it is counter to your preciously-held beliefs, you are ignoring it or dismissing it – are you in denial, or something?

The idea that proxies are accurate and precise to 0.1C after several hundred years does not sit well. Nor does the acceptance of that figure while excluding others. Do we believe in the Eemian warming? Roman warm period? Do we believe that the absence of simultaneous and global measurements excludes any warm period from validity?

Climate Scientists and their disciples deny getting anything wrong, even after Gergis failed twice to prove Mann was right. If the BEST (?) funded Climate Scientists can't get their facts straight about why they got it wrong the first time, why should taxpayers fund further attempts? Which brings the thread back to where it started.

Climate Science has failed to prove Hubert Lamb was wrong, so by the logic of Entropic Man, Mann was wrong.

If we return to our discussion of a couple of days ago, there are striking similarities between the rates of warming for the beginning and end of last century. As discussed, the data is inconclusive with regards to whether one rate was higher than the other. I dare say that one can readily obtain proof in either direction using statistical gymnastics but I, for one, would not find that convincing.

"I believe he had a paper published many years ago, didn't amount to much."

Cos if it's not a paper, no matter how relevant, it doesn't count. If you can show that noise in produces a hockeystick out it doesn't matter. Do you Phil Clarke support the findings of MBH? And the methodology? The problems with the dodgy stats? The concealment of inconvenient data? The mixture of two data sources on a graph without annotation? If you do, what a strange ivory tower you must live in.

So I think we can conclude that the recent rate of warming is not exceptional and the recent temperatures are lower than during most of the preceding 10,000 years. The caveat here is that I have made the assumption that part of the Marcott findings are acceptable to you.

We have to get rid of UHI. Jones and Karl take it on.https://climateaudit.org/2010/11/03/phil-jones-and-the-china-network-part-1/

Jones et al 1990"In 1988, Tom Karl had published a study purporting to show that UHI didn’t “matter” in the US. In 1990, Jones decided to extend the results to the rest of the world and sought out data for networks in Russia, Australia and China in order to compare “urban” and “rural” sites as a supposed way of estimating the urbanization impact on global temperature. They concluded that there was “no indication of significant urban influence” in any of the three networks and that an upper limit of ~0.05 deg could be set on the contribution of urbanization to 20th century land temperatures, an order of magnitude less than observed warming.

Jones had obtained the Chinese data for this network from W-C Wang in the US in 1989 or early 1990. The data had been collated by Zeng, a visiting scholar at SUNY in 1990, who had collated an 84-station subset from NDP039 data, consisting of 42 pairs of “urban” and “rural” sites. Wang and Thomas Karl of NOAA were recognized as coauthors of Jones et al 1990, while Zeng was neither listed as a coauthor nor even acknowledged. The collation of the Chinese network was described as follows: ..... "

It is odd that the pause was denied for a while, on the basis that you needed 15 years to identify a trend; Mother Nature duly complied, and papers were published to explain it. However, it only takes 3 years for the pause to be declared finished; now, if the pause “resumes,” or temperatures actually fall, how long will it be before this will be acknowledged? Am I being too cynical in suspecting that it will be more than 3 years?

With assistance from Karl, Jones 1990 wiped out the significance of UHI in temperature data records, despite the absence of the data records that were relied on. Even The Guardian was concerned, and had to seek advice from the previously respected expert Ed Miliband:https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese

"A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.

Jones and a collaborator have been accused by a climate change sceptic and researcher of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming – a hotly contested issue."

"Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones's collaborator, Wei-­Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had "screwed up".

The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings. But they do call into question the probity of some climate change science.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

Wang was cleared of scientific fraud by his university, but new information brought to light today indicates at least one senior colleague had serious concerns about the affair.

It also emerges that documents which Wang claimed would exonerate him and Jones did not exist."

Peterson Connolley and Fleck collaborated to suppress the 1970s Global Cooling Scare, and the entire Hockey Team have been involved in trying to keep the MWP and LIA squashed flat.

Isn't it time someone reviewed UHI as a significant element of the evidence of Global Warming? The Chinese might even have an interest in trying to find Wang's data/source.

Mann's reputation might depend on the outcome, but Climate Scientists only seem to value his Hockey Stick, which relies on Jones 1990.

For those that consider The Guardian an unreliable source of information on Climate Science, McIntyre at Climate Audit is worth a look. He has a few issues with Jones 1990, and Jacoby and d'Arrigo the pioneers of dendrothermometry

A new book on the origins of the global warming movement tells how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was first pressed into policy base evidence making.

It was a single line in one report that read:

The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.

These words in the second assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changecan now be seen as pivotal in the history of global warming science.

However tentative the wording, this was the first time that an official assessment had made a positive ‘detection’ claim.

The breakthrough was widely celebrated and then used to justify a change of US policy, towards support for binding greenhouse gas emissions targets.

But this came only after protests over what had been done to the IPCC report to make way for this statement. Just days before the US policy change was announced, an op-ed by leading US scientist, Frederick Seitz, described the late removal of sceptical passages as ‘a major deception’, and a ‘disturbing corruption of the peer-review process’, where policymakers and the public had been misled into believing ‘that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming’.

Short answer? Of course not, that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics … BUT it can leave the hot object warmer than it would be if the cold object weren’t there. Let me explain why this is so.

Let me start by introducing the ideas of individual flows and net flows. Suppose I owe you twenty-five dollars. I run into you, but all I have is a hundred dollar bill. You say no problem, you have seventy-five in cash. I give you the hundred, you give me the seventy-five, and the debt is paid.

Cos if it's not a paper, no matter how relevant, it doesn't count. If you can show that noise in produces a hockeystick out it doesn't matter. Do you Phil Clarke support the findings of MBH? And the methodology? The problems with the dodgy stats? The concealment of inconvenient data? The mixture of two data sources on a graph without annotation? If you do, what a strange ivory tower you must live in

You've uncritically swallowed every McIntyre myth whole. So much for scepticism.

The MBH algorithm does not generate hockey sticks from random noise. The data used by McIntyre and McKitrick had a wholly unrealistic level of autocorrelation, as shown by David Ritson. And the resulting 'hockey sticks' were of a tiny magnitude compared to the real thing and were so sparse that M&M had to data-mine the 1% most HS-looking for presentation

The statistical criticisms (non-centred PCA) are moot, using the more mainstream method has a minimal effect on the curve, as demonstrated in the literature by Wahl and Amman.

All supporting data is available. Which graph are you referring to?

In other words, none of McIntyre's criticisms amount to a hill of beans. MBH89/99 were the first multiproxy studies of their type. We now have many more studies, many more proxies and better coverage, every subsequent reconstruction fits within the uncertainty bands of the 'hockey stick' papers. Certainly the most comprehensive, PAGES 2K has a remarkably similar curve.

Mike's nature trick, of course. The concatenation of proxy data with temperature records in order to hide the fact that the proxies did not match the data in the period where thermometer figures exist.

Scepticism? The suspicion of the results and opinions on a matter of a group with a good reason to find that the MWP/LIA didn't amount to anything who set out to find that result with dodgy methods and by magic do so. Sceptical of the way that any such dodgy behaviour is not rejected by the other scientists with the same agenda. Yeah, I'm sceptical.

GolfCharlie. The problem Willis answers is a common one: what warms what? Commonly the CO2 greenhouse effect is falsely pictured as a matter of backwelling IR radiation warming the Earth's surface. In fact it's a matter of semantics, the Earth's surface is warmer not because it's warmed but because it is kept warmer than it would otherwise be. Those who would argue GHGs warm are deluded. Following their reasoning they should believe their clothing warms them. Unless their clothing includes built-in heaters, obviously your clothes don't heat you; instead they slow down heat losses from our bodies, keeping us warmer than we otherwise would be. So if you encounter some one who tells you GHGs warm us, imagine them sans clothes.

"Based on existing real proxy data one can derive the real-world year to year correlations. Using data from the North American network of seventy sets of tree rings extending from 1400 to 1980 you obtain an actual one-year AR1 mean autocorrelation factor with a value close to 0.15 (the exact number depends on the proxy series and time period chosen but is always less than about 0.3)."

Given the problems with work involving dendro, are you sure that reconstructions (including PAGES2K) can cope with the LIA, having ignored the MWP based on geographical restrictions?

Do all Dendrochronology temperature reconstructions depend on the work of Jacoby and d'Arrigo?Can Dendrochronology be used to the current date without the "Divergence Problem" showing up?Do all temperature record reconstructions use Jones 1990 to eliminate UHI as a factor in increasing temperatures being recorded?